Fixing Windows 8, Part 4: Evolve Metro for Pro Apps

Continuing a series of articles that suggest changes Microsoft can make to Windows 8 during the next few years, I examine another obvious, common sense area of improvement: The Metro environment needs to evolve to support more professional and complex apps.

Today, Metro provides a fairly limited environment that is suitable almost exclusively for simple apps. And while a few efforts have been made to experiment with more complex interfaces—witness the radial menus in the OneNote app as the obvious and perhaps only good example—this is something that clearly needs to be formalized for the entire platform.

The reasoning here is simple: Microsoft positions Windows 8 and RT as a full-featured alternative to the iPad (and Android tablets), but today’s versions require users to access desktop applications to complete more complex tasks. Since many desktop applications aren’t available on Windows RT, this is a short-term solution only, and Metro needs to evolve to accommodate this need.

What I’m not asking for is a way to make complex toolbars and ribbons in Metro. Instead, Microsoft needs to create or adapt user interfaces that make sense for Metro—and thus can work with touch-based systems—but can accommodate a far denser series of commands than is currently possible.

For example, consider the density of the app bar in the Photos app with that of the ribbon in the desktop-based Windows Photo Gallery application:

Photos app: Simple, but dumb

Photo Gallery: Powerful, but complex with lots of command density

Obviously, it’s not even close. And while it will likely never be possible (or desirable) to expose as many commands in a Metro app as is possible on desktop application, if only because of the needs of touch-screen hit target sizes, surely some middle ground can be achieved. Certainly, Metro apps like the Photos example here need to mature and add functionality. But it needs to happen in a formalized way that makes sense for the platform.

But it’s not hard to imagine adding commands. After all, each app can have two app bars, and even taking into consideration Microsoft’s vaunted touch heat maps, you could add ten more commands to Photos easily via just a top-mounted app bar, and these could often trigger pop-up menus or, when required, overlays over the app that provide additional functionality. Consider the following:

This top-mounted app bar could even be formalized to include only “edit”-type commands, so that the more common consumption capabilities would be on the bottom and the more complex creation/edit capabilities could be on the top. Wizards could guide the user through multi-step tasks via overlays in the middle of the screen, or just via a more typical (today) full-screen interface.

Incidentally, it won’t surprise you to discover that Adobe Photoshop Express for iPad looks and works much like what I’m proposing. It’s not the full Photoshop, but it provides a surprisingly useful range of editing options via just a handful of extra command buttons. And more could be added easily without over-cluttering the UI.

I’m not a designer, and I don’t think any of us need to get bogged down in specifics here: Obviously, commands could be placed on the bottom, in a fan in the lower corners, or whatever. The here point is simple: Metro can and should be evolved to accommodate more functionality in all apps, not just in specific apps. And this can happen via a formal expansion of app capabilities that could involve new user interfaces that build on what’s available in Metro 1.0. And it doesn’t need to wait for Windows 9.

Discuss this Article 38

Yes, I agree, and even app makers now could have four appbars in their app. What they can do is hack the opened and closed events in the "real" appbars, and when they fire, they could use that to open or close their "imitation" appbars on the left and right.

Why not use the Office applications on the Surface RT desktop as a model? They work great with touch and yet are still fully featured.

Code Writer is the best Metro app I've seen by far, but it is still not nearly as good as ordinary desktop editors, like Notepad++. The way the OS tries to simplify file search and browsing and hides information is also part of the problem.

the completely amusing (sad, pathetic) thing is - Office on RT isn't Metro. It's old-school C++ directly on top of Win32 apis. It NEVER will be metro - EVER. It's simply not possible. So it was okay for MS to port office to ARM and run on the desktop - but everyone else who wants to run on ARM has to do it in a half-baked metro scheme that even Microsoft itself can't make decent apps for.

It's not just the command density that's an issue in Metro apps, it's the whole Metro environment. Just look at the issues ISVs are having on MSDN's forums performing operations that have just moderate complexity. For example, one reported a huge slowdown in collecting small amounts of information from a bunch of file headers. In a Desktop app the whole thing took 10 seconds while the equivalent operation took a whopping 5 minutes (30X longer). Why? Because the Metro environment uses "brokers" for random file access which requires copying the file before giving access to the app. The Metro environment is full of these sorts of issues.

Not to mention that tablet users expect to pay a few pennies for their consumption apps AND MSFT takes 30% off the top (AAPL's only true "innovation"). You have to be crazy to develop anything for Metro. I ditched my almost-complete Metro app effort and instead beefed up my Desktop programs to be more tablet/small screen friendly.

Agreed. Honestly, most current WinRT apps appear to be little more than proofs-of-concept. Hopefully once the Windows 8 touch market becomes more established, developers will mature their apps to accommodate this need.

The WinRT development stack was interesting, but is turning out to be too prohibitive for many types of applications. Some of the security settings (like the file contracts henador mentioned) are a real problem. The 30% cut for Microsoft also seems a bit high.

Given that Microsoft *might* eventually capture 5-10% of the mobile market, why would I invest the time and effort to develop for a platform that restricts me so much? Time spent on Android and iOS development seems far more profitable.

As a side point, Android and iOS devices are for content *consumpion*, whereas up until this point I used my Windows desktop PC for content *creation*. If Microsoft's goal is to phase out the desktop and leave us only with Metro, they better make it easier to write powerful applications, and they better resolve the severe performance penalty Metro apps have. Otherwise, Windows will simply become another content consumption OS, leaving the content creators with what? Mac? Linux?

The world is certainly changing, and I'm sad to see Microsoft giving up on their content creators. I don't know where to go after this. Do I drop .NET and C# now, and start learning Scala, Java, Python, Vala, or Objective-C? Do I abandon Visual Studio now and start learning Eclipse? Will there even *be* a Visual Studio product when the desktop finally goes away?

There is so much uncertainty and so little guidance from Microsoft right now, I am feeling very lost. That is not a good place for this platform's developers to be.

Paul: Absolutely agree. Let's face it, the Metro app ecosystem is not the equivalent to iOS or Android and won't be for some time. A way to bring value to the ecosystem is just this - bring in 'pro apps' as you recommend. Microsoft should be encouraging (incenting??) leading software companies (e.g. Quicken, Adobe, et al) to port to Metro. Wouldn't take many of the 'pro apps' to help equalize things.

Another fix for you - maybe repeating another's suggestion - forgive me if I am. Why is it that when in desktop and you want to look at a picture or read a pdf, that you go to the Metro app, that when closed takes you back to the start screen and not the desktop? Annoying to have to click or hit an extra key when you should return right back to where you were before viewing the picture or reading the file.

I agree with your second paragraph. Closing the Metro app should put you back to where you were on the desktop. You should always be placed pack to where you were(Metro or desktop). Paul, hope you pass this on to MS.

Increasing options that way would be nice. That being said, I would also love to see the generalisation of the radial menu! It's simple, elegant and one damn effective way to render right-click options on tactile devices and PC's...

"The Metro environment needs to evolve to support more professional and complex apps."

Now this area that Paul has touched on will definitely be quite a big dilemma for MS.

Programs in this realm that I and my colleagues use daily at work are Avid Media Composer, Pro Tools HDX, Mya, Modo, 3D Studio Max, AutoCad, After Effects etc. I just cant see many of these working efficiently in the metro environment at all. All of these programs are multi platform, thus the UI, file/menu structure, and workflow experience must be maintained and unified across all platforms. For the most part, these complex programs function the same across PC, Mac, and some even in Linux. They have to. It's quite common to be working on a project on PC, and then working on it in Mac throughout the production cycle. To have a completely different UI and experience on one platform would be a production pipeline disaster. Cross platform compatibility is very essential.

Then there's cross platform file compatibility. I can take a session file done in Pro Tools HDX on the PC and bring it to a studio that uses Mac. This is done all the time. The same is true for all the programs mentioned above and more. The metro versions would have to maintain this cross platform file compatibility and I doubt the developers have the resources to do such an endeavor.

Many of these more complex programs work in tangent with one another. They're actually linked and even synced to run together, hence you'll see dual/triple monitor workstations with 3 or more programs running at the same time. Adobe's Dynamic Link is a good example of this. It's not uncommon to see After Effects, Photoshop and Premiere all open on one workstation and making use of Dynamic link. The same holds true in the audio realm. I myself will have Pro Tools HDX, Reason and other programs synced and running together via the ReWire protocol. Networked rendering with video/compositing programs is also something to consider. Will the metro environment support such a common work flow and production pipeline? At this point, I'm just not convinced at all.

We also have programs that run in real-time as opposed to block based, especially the professional audio programs like Avid's Pro Tools HDX. The merits of this is a big subject, but extremely vital. Then there's all the external I/O hardware associated with it. Can metro support a real-time sample based audio engine? MS will have their work cut out for them that's for sure.

On the subject of cross platform programs, one has to realize that many of these run on an emulation layer on the other platforms. If one is developed on Mac, there is a good chance it sits on top of an emulation layer on PC and vice versa. It would be way too costly and resource heavy for a company to maintain two or more entirely separate code bases. That's just not going to happen. This is another area MS really has to look at seriously, as a company maintaining a separate metro app is unlikely to happen.

How about these complex programs working in the world of touch? These programs are very much menu/file driven but even more so, keyboard shortcut and macro driven. To get anything done fast, they have to be. Many of these programs would be dismal in the world of touch and very unproductive. A little bit of touch here and there, sure, but all touch is very unlikely. The speed of production is really based off of keyboard commands/macros, and I just cant see a touch based UI experience surpassing that. It would actually slow things down. Another issue is accuracy and precision, which is essential. The latency when invoking actions and commands with touch will have to come down greatly. Draw a line using touch and you'll see a very noticeable lag and latency. This doesn't occur with a keyboard, mouse and other input devices.

Support for these advanced programs in metro is a very long way off in my opinion. MS will have their work cut out for them and at the same time, try to convince developers to make the metro port. The above is only a very small handful of things to consider. With the specific programs mentioned above, along with many others, the desktop will be around for a long time to come in my opinion. If MS cuts it off, we might very well see these programs vanish from the PC platform altogether.

I'd be interested to know Microsoft's vision of whether Metro will ever be designed to support these type of applications. I use pro audio apps and Metro does not even have a MIDI API currently. The thing is though it's only the power users that use these type of applications. The majority of people now seem to get by with more simple applications and the web browsers that run on tablets.

I don't see how any touch UI will ever be able to offer the same level of complex software found on a desktop. It doesn't matter if you run IOS, Android or windows Metro... MS can improve Metro, but touch will still be inferior. They need to improve the transition between Metro and the desktop. It has to be seamless. Google and Apple will be in the same boat eventually this is Microsoft's chance to shine and dominate this bold new concept.

Well, this is the most crazy thing I have read in all the Win8 coverage. Metro for "rich applications"??? Didn't we already have support for multi-windowing, multitasking, multi-threaded rich applications??? Why does MS need to invent it again for touch-based GUI addressing the needs of cell phones and tablets (screens no larger than 10 inches)????
Let's face it. There is absolute no need for Metro. If I want a tablet and tablet apps, there is the far more mature Android and iOS environments and tablets. If you want "rich applications" these cannot be addressed in flat GUI, that has to be sparse for touch and designed for tiny screens. Anybody who does work with rich applications realizes the need for multiwindowing (just count the sub-windows open in a session of Photoshop!!!).
If Microsoft wants to chase Android and iOS, Metro/WinRT is definitely a start but, so far, the silly tiles fail to impress as the Android widgets are far superior (not to add more visually attractive and far more customizable). MS is well behind the race and it is not catching up in any meaningful way. There is nothing in WinRT tablets and phones that can even come close to Google Now and there is not going to be in any meaningful period of time.

Why develop a Metro app that can only be used by Windows 8 users? (currently about 5% of all Windows users). When you could develop a normal Desktop "app", with none of Metro's restrictions, that 100% of Windows users could use (Windows RT excluded).

Then to add insult to injury, Microsoft keeps 30% of your profit for themselves. Who would bother with Metro development?

Windows 7 is multi-touch capable, as well as the Windows 8 desktop. What do we need Metro for?

That's ridiculous. And has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this series: To be realistic and work within what's happening, not in some fantasy world where Windows never advances beyond the legacy PC desktop.

It's far from ridiculous, and actually quite logical instead of clinging to something which just isn't working. Firstly Metro is a horrible Start screen, that's what all the defenders cry, they say once you realize it's a start screen it all makes sense world peace is achieved. News flash, Metro is a horrible start screen, the main reason is that it doesn't have any options to organize programs or settings, you just get one huge long list of programs, subprograms, settings, etc. You even get all the submenus of installed programs, so a single program might create a dozen tiles!! You can add Internet Explorer to that failed experiment as well, pin sites? yeah thanks, I'll go ahead and pin the thousands of websites I usually have bookmarked, and let me guess no options for folders or organization so I'll just sit here and flip through all the pages until maybe I find my website, yeah.

Look, we understand what Microsoft was trying to do with Metro. But at the end of the day they are trying to out-iOS Apple, and that ain't going to work. Microsoft should have refined their desktop OS to be fluid in touch, even just small things like redesigning the paradigm of closing or minimizing windows would have gone a long way. We didn't need a new mini-OS, we just needed some thought put into the desktop. The MAIN strength of windows on a tablet is you have a full PC on a tablet, that's what should be their primary ammo against Apple. If Microsoft plans to use Metro against iOS they are going to lose and lose very badly. A bit off topic but that's also why RT was a mistake, it just confuses consumers who say "Wut? it's windows, but it doesn't run my programs?" MS should have released the Atom devices (which I'm typing on one at this very moment and love it) as the budget tablets which directly compete against the ipad/android tablets, and the Ivy bridge units would be the enthusiast/hardcore users which would filter down to the mainstream as Haswell and other solutions become reality in the next year.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge MS fan and love windows but Metro is a complete failure. Wasting resources trying to salvage it will just take away from refining the desktop, and would take away the strength of having a full Windows OS on a tablet. Lets face it, the desktop isn't going anywhere in the near future, so with that admittance why would anyone want Metro to be the focus of development?

Here is a crazy idea. MS needs to make a couple of consumer companion to Windows 8. These would be a Windows Phone without the phone (Zune) and a very small music device (iPod Shuffle.) You need to be able to listen to free music from Xbox Music on these.

I know this doesn't have anything to do with fixing Windows 8, but somehow MS need to get the consumer or non of the rest will matter.

The problem is coming from definition of PC according to Microsoft. For whatever reason they got it all wrong and i am not sure why. Being a programmer for 33 years and working with various OS definition of PC MS is trying to change is just wrong. PC was and is and it will be same thing and it is not evolving into anything. Tablets, Smart Phones are not PCs as MS is trying to identify them but PMs (Personal Mobile). PM devices emerged in recent years have absolutely nothing in common with PCs which as i said didn't evolve. PMs MS needed to address by creating an appropriate OS to support them. Coming from idea that those PM as also PCs they came up with idea of Windows 8 which ends up not being good for anything. Metro is less than what some people call it legacy OS, so less that is absolutely absurd to spend any minute of your time using those Metro Apps over Win32 apps which are superior and better in every aspect.
MS slapped two worlds together in some strange way where every UI usability test fails. As I said Metro is something that nobody wants and people never wanted it which is reflected in failure of Windows 7x phone and Zune and yet MS is being stubborn and still trying to push same idea. Me as end user cannot accept Metro as being less than what Windows 7 offers therefore for me and many other people Windows 8 is downgrade. Yes, they are underhood improvements but end user doesn't see that, all they care is what they see and it how it performs, and sure Windows 7 is fast OS.
Knowing that MS is not going to drop Metro, and if i was them i would do it, they should make clear separation of OS meant for PC and OS meant for PM by removing Metro from Desktop Windows 8 version, and removing Desktop from Tablet/Smart Phone Windows 8 version. Same interface doesn't need to serve all platforms, that is just ridicilous attempt. MS should implement features to help PC and PM communicate in term of syncing information and for that you don't need same interface.

Apple got it so right, and of course they are not crazy to make Mac OS look like iOS.

" Being a programmer for 33 years and working with various OS"
hmmm...I don't think your the target demographic for Metro. But if MS bet on trying to please people like you would that be a step in the wrong direction?

*Happy New Year to Everybody, and the Best of New Years to 'ya*! (Welcome to my Holiday Writing Fest!) Huzzah.

"Being a programmer for 33 years and working with various OS definition of PC MS is trying to change is just wrong. PC was and is and it will be same thing and it is not evolving into anything. Tablets, Smart Phones are not PCs as MS is trying to identify them but PMs (Personal Mobile)."

I've been in the game not as long--although you and I have likely done very different things--for the past ~27 years and I concur completely. Couldn't agree more.

There's this really weird argument that says that if Apple enjoys temporary Nirvana in the cell phone business that it means "everything's going to change." It seems to me that only someone involved for a very short time in this business might ever jump to such strange conclusions--and so quickly, too!

Portable TV's didn't eliminate the large, non-portable Television at home--not even close. Cell phones aren't going to eliminate desktops because they aren't even the same thing--might as well say that a new style of boxer shorts is "going to change the PC forever!" It's ridiculous. As long as people live in homes and work in offices then the desktop computer as it has developed over the past 25 years is as safe as it can possibly be and will only inexorably improve. It's simply superior in so very many ways--and that's largely because it isn't constrained by the rules of portability design--namely, portable devices worship at the altar of Battery Life, which is not an overriding concern in the design of desktops, and therefore liberating in terms of design possibilities and product likelihoods.

Sometimes these days I wonder if Microsoft is being run by children...;) By toddlers, almost, it often seems. And I wince at the thought.

WinRT GUI and code is fine for portable, touch screen devices. Good job, Microsoft! Metro/Modern UI pretty much stinks for the desktop, imo. Nothing wrong at all with building cross-compatibility for WinRT into Windows Pro 8--that's even a brilliant idea--but then, why'd you have to bring along the danged *GUI* from the portable devices, too? That's nearly the most irrelevant part of WinRT from the standpoint of the desktop. This should have been an optional UI config from the start for *Windows 8 Pro.* It stinks that I have to use Classic Shell's start menu (Classic Shell is a *great little UI program* Microsoft created the need for) simply to *try* and boot right to my desktop (which is so much easier on my eyes than that jarring Fred-Flintstone UI that looks like a concoction gummed up in a grammar school paint-by-numbers design class. Whatever happened to "elegant" as a GUI descriptor for an OS UI for adults?

Again, I want Microsoft to tell me why it thinks I want my present 1920x1200, 28" stable of monitors to become festooned with greasy, Kentucky Fried-Chicken fingerprints and why the company thinks I'd like to type on such a desktop monitor screen--with 0 tactile feedback and a horrible typing angle guaranteed to accelerate my presently non-existent carpal-tunnel into the stratosphere!...? Eh, Microsoft, what have you been smokin--er, thinking? Most optical mice are accurate to thousands of points/dots per square inch--how's somebody's big, fat (probably greasy and nasty) fingertip even compare to that kind of pixel accuracy? How do inverted, simulated flat (2d) keyboards compare to real 3d keyboards with real tactile feedback? Answer--for the desktop, they don't. For portables, all that stuff is fine because it has to be--there's no other way to do it and still maintain portability.

I realize that emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, but what's with all the Apple mongering? If Microsoft's 95% share of the worldwide computer OS market wanted to pickup something like OS X then I suppose it would already have done so, and in much greater numbers, years ago. Does Microsoft want to start bleeding consumer/enterprise OS market share the world over?

If so, then the current configuration in Win8 for the non-optional Metro/Modern UI is one way to eventually get there. Microsoft is lucky, really lucky, in one sense, though. And that is that the alternatives to Windows 8, apart from Win7, like OS X, are so much worse comparatively in some very fundamental ways. It's mind boggling, all of this.

Microsoft's New Years' Resolution for 2013:

1) I promise myself I will relearn the difference between desktops/laptops and portable devices and why something that works splendidly on one might work very badly on the other. I must relearn much that I have seemingly forgotten.

Is this wishful thinking, or do you think Microsoft will see the error of its way in time to do something about it?

Paul, so far all of your recommendations for fixing Windows 8 have been spot on. One issue that I find really annoying in Windows 8/RT is the Siloing of many of their services. Over the holiday season I should have been able to tell my loved ones to get me a Microsoft Gift card from any retail store and use that card for everything including Windows Store Apps, Xbox Music, Xbox Video, and Windows Phone Apps. Right now the only option is Microsoft Points which only works on Video and Music (and only the 360 and PC show the point value of movies) and I have to have at least the amount of the movie to even use it which is an awful experience. Furthermore, I should be able to browse and purchase from the Xbox Video collection on my Windows Phone and just have it available to me on my PC/Tablet and Xbox 360. Lastly, and this may be a pipe dream but I think that Windows Phone apps should be able to run on Windows 8/RT (I honestly don't know if this is even technically possible.) And just like with videos and music I should be able to search for and purchase both Windows Phone and Windows Store apps from any Microsoft device I use including Tablet and phone. As much as Microsoft talks about integration with Windows 8 this needs to be fixed and fast!

One part of the "fixing Windows 8" series should be about the built in apps.

Yes, we have heard again and again that these apps are technically not part of the OS, and that this helps Microsoft improve them over time at a faster pace than the OS, or at least at their own pace.

But let's face the facts: 1) the built in apps (Mail, People, Calendar, Music, Video, etc) are experienced and promoted as part of the OS. 2) they are dreadful; and 3) they haven't been fixed, let alone improved, in any meaningful way since the OS shipped, not to mention there have been actually more updates to the OS than to these apps.

And while I'm sure you are aware of all the problems and shortcomings of these apps and I don't want to ennumerat them all here, I just need to mention, out of the need of releasing my sheer frustration, how absolutely USELESS the Xbox Music app is. It is a disgrace. It is plagued with errors (a song from the store doesn't have a supported format, really?), more crashes than actual songs played (I mean that literally), bizarre navigation, and desperating performance.

Please address this issue in this or another series. Microsoft has still to prove that they get the concept of a modern app.

Before Microsoft evolve Metro to correctly handle complex/advanced apps,they need to evolve Metro to be really usable on a P.C.
Microsoft is making a big mistake when they try to enforce the idea that Tablet are a variety of P.C when Tablet is more likely a bigger/more usable smartphone. Sure convertibles can be used as light/mobile laptop but more often they are quite underpowered.
So Microsoft must first acknowledge that there are 3 form factors,not 2:
* Smartphones
* Tablets/ Convertibles
* P.C
I could even add one more by splitting P.C in two subcategories : mobile P.C (small laptops) and static P.C (large laptops and desktops).
According to me even mobile P.C and static P.C deserve each to have features specific to their form factor.
It is unfortunate that Microsoft and OEM fail to make evolve P.C and choose to give up this wonderful platform for underpowered platforms such as tablets. The lack of imagination and the unability to build appealing/revolutionnary products of Microsoft and its OEMS are extremly disturbing. Why can't they make an efficient use of the power of today C.P.U, for example ?
Why can they make of multi-monitor a defacto standard for desktop P.C ?
I mean would it be wonderful if each P.C come with a least 2 monitor instead of one with the O.S and tools specifically design to take advantage of these multiple monitors ?

SmartPhones and Tablet can share a lot of features because of their nature and of their touch screen. Yet, the Metro U.I are different and taylored for each of this form factor. Thus it is hard to understand why the Metro u.I of both Tablets and traditionnal P.C need to be the same.
Normally the Metro U.I for traditionnal P.C need to be much more customizable and powerful than the one available with Windows U.I.
And beyond anything it needs to be optional.
I personnaly think that the Start Screen can be used as some king of dashboard on traditional P.C and server, but it really needs to be much more powerful on those platform and much more efficiently support multi monitor.
So for me the first step is to improve Metro in order to make it much more usable on P.C. This however doesn't mean that the desktop should be discarded. With some imagination and skill, there should be a lot of ways to improve the desktop.

Once the Metro U.I for P.C is really usable, according to this form factor, then Microsoft will be able to push the developpement of advanced Metro apps aimed at replacing desktop apps.
Though even this will not be easy and until Microsoft itself demonstrate that it is possible and relatively easy to built complex apps with Metro, i don't see a lot of editors building complex/advanced Metro apps. Something similar happen in the past with W.P.F. It is only with Silverlight that W.P.F like applications become popular.
Btw, i find it hard to swallow that Microsoft is giving up Silverlight when this technology could have been a basis of a new Windows developpement platform. If Microsoft had focused it could have made of Silverlight an extraordinary developpement platform for all its platforms.

I could not agree more with all of the Fixing Windows 8 recommendations. For me using the metro interface is a mixed bag. I like the touch interface and the way that Apps are installed, except automatic update option would be nice. I definitely would like to have the capability to have the split screen mode more adjustable and in fact I would like to have more than two metro apps running at a time. Of course this brings up the issue of the Charms panel – which app does it connect to? I would like the start screen to extend across multiple monitors. This would permit, for example, watching a movie on one monitor and performing other metro app activities such as mail on another monitor. I also believe that the current set of metro apps are works in progress as developers experiment and learn different UI approaches for performing operations within their apps. With that said, I agree that the current state of Microsoft Apps needs to be reviewed and missing options need to be added quickly.

However, I cannot imagine using a metro app to develop metro apps or Winphone 8 apps or ???. Visual Studio is, IMHO, just too complex to be a metro App. I also cannot imagine writing a 100 page document that includes tables and pictures, etc. using a metro App where typing and drag-drop is used extensively. For example, drag-dropping a code snippet from Visual Studio to the metro mail app is not allowed, but copy-paste is. This leads to a request/need for a closer connection between the desktop and the metro environment.

In addition, the metro environment does not permit long running or high resource demand applications without user interaction. For example according to Microsoft, running a peak detection algorithm on a 3D surface or energy minimization of molecular structures or performing complex data modeling or instrument control and acquisition or a complex local database search that could take hours or days would not be handled properly by the metro app management algorithms. Thus I don’t see how Metro Apps are going to replace desk top applications entirely unless the underlying metro architecture changes. Yes, performing these on a server solves some issues, but keep in mind that today’s multi-core processors along with large RAM capability motherboards permit doing analysis using workstations that could only be done years ago on a server. Thus these workstations free the researcher/analyst from being tied to a server. Giving up this capability would be a step backward.

BTW: I do not find that iPhone or iPad or Android Apps are that much better than Win8 Apps -- For example, I do not find the iPad mail app better, just different. It may have some features that are missing from the Win8 app, but comparing similar features, I would take the Win8 App. In fact, for my money, I think the Surface is better than the iPad. The only reason to buy an iPad or iPhone is if there is some must have App that is not available on Win8 or Winphone 8.

Why can't Windows 8 just auto detect the fact that there is no touch screen and it's running on a PC, then adjust the Windows Store apps functionality for keyboard / mouse input and additional functionality. Hot Corners are then unnecessary and bottom right click bar could be a task bar.

Just as flawed as the idea of trying to shoe-horn touch onto a desktop interface is trying to shoe-horn power-user features onto a touch interface.

There is only one solution for a true hybrid product that does not make this mistake -- an adaptive morphing user interface that adapts to the type of input received from the user.

Receive a touch input and the multitasking taskbar disappears, icons become larger and everything simplifies in an animation. Receive a mouse input and in an animation the multitasking taskbar appears, more options and icons appear but smaller.

A user will also easily understand these two modes as it is the user who has chosen to use the screen or mouse. What is confusing with Windows 8 is that there are separate apps for both metro and classic. With such an adaptive/morphing UI as I propose there would be a single application whose UI would simply adapt to either mode of input.

What if Microsoft never intend to have pro or even advanced Metro apps ?
What if Microsoft wants and expects the traditional P.C to die and to be replaced by connected devices and Xbox based products before the next major version of Windows ?
Doesn't Microsoft want to become a «Devices and services» company ?
And devices do not need complex apps. They just remote desktop connection and cloud/services based apps for any advanced computing need.
Here is a prediction, Microsoft will do whatever it can to kill the traditional P.C and to make of Windows the most advanced cloud based O.S which can only support simple native apps. Any advanced or pro computing need would be achieved via public or private cloud solution. The next Xbox will be fundemental for any home private cloud solution.

Very much agree. Microsoft could corner the market when it comes to high productivity Metro apps (I know - don't call it Metro!), but it seems to want to leave that the the third party developers. Right now, the Surface RT would be a simple tablet for gaming, web browsing and light email and small documents. Nothing really that productive. It's 'just a tablet'. The Surface was to break that identity and expand, making it more than just a tablet. I expected more. It has the potential for sure, it's just not being used.

Well maybe just maybe MS doesn't think the desktop will disappear thus complex desktop apps won't disappear and therefore there will be no need to adapt metro for more complex apps. They probably see win8 as the os for content creation while RT will be used for simple iOS type apps. In the future people will realize that RT is sufficient for most users and given the price differential between RT and win8 pro machines RT will become the dominant one and win8 will become niche for those doing professional content creation. I know its hard to admit but win7/office 2013 is overkill for most users' purposes. Microsoft realizes this, its time for their users to finally realize it and stop bitching about metro since it is the future of most windows development. People have already abandoned desktop app development for the Web and mobile OSes; its long overdue that MS got into this game with metro.

I actually think this is exactly what MS always planned to do going forward. The underlying technical goal IMO of W8 is to replace the win32 and all earlier Windows APIs with a new one: winrt. This is a huge undertaking. What we have now is very much an R 1.0 API. Great swaths of underpinning stuff (AD support comes immediately to mind) have not been converted over to winrt. IMV things like "blue" will happen rather frequently, and will primarily involve additions of functionality to the winrt API. As this happens richer apps with more sophisticated UI designs will become possible.

The challenge is going to be to determine what "PRO" metro apps ought to look like. While MS may have some ideas here, it is the 3rd party PROAPP developers who will have to figure this out.

Another challenge: we've been here before. .Net, CLR, C#, etc was supposed to usher in a replacement API for win32. For line of business apps this has been wildly successful. OTOH the developers of the major Windows PRO apps back then saw no real business justification for converting their stuff. What's gonna change their minds this time around?

So Microsoft must first acknowledge that there are 3 form factors,not 2:
* Smartphones
* Tablets/ Convertibles
* P.C"

+1!

Microsoft also needs to also acknowledge and realize that there are different types of programs with very different needs that simply wont work in the touch/tablet world at all. Some of many I mentioned in my post above. Metro is suited for specific types of apps, but others just wont succeed in that format.

Some programs need nothing more than a command line terminal. A UI would be overkill. Then there's the type of program that is very menu/context menu driven and keyboard shortcut/macro driven. They're also very customizable to fit specifc workflows and production piplines. These simply would be very unproductive in the world of touch because of their complexity and will never succed in the metro format. What about the type of program that doesn't even need a UI? Siri and Google voice are examples of that. There are many other examples too numourous to go into.

So what type of program is best suited for the metro type environment and the world of touch on tablets? Well, I decided to visit the Apple app store to find out. Since it's been around for a few years, one only needs to browse the top 100 apps on the iTunes charts. This is a good indicator of the type of app that would succeed in a pure metro environment and that type of form factor:

It comes as no surprise that it's all entertainment and content consumption apps. Mostly games actually. Programs such as AutoCad, Mya, 3D Studio Max, Modo, Pro Tools HDX, Avid Media Composer, After Effects etc will never work in the metro world. They are so feature rich and involved that they are best suited for a desktop enviroment. Most of these also have various types of very accurate input devices, from large format mixing consoles to trackballs. Many of these have over 15 years of development on the desktop. These companies do not have the resources to port over into an environment that simply wont work and make them very ineffective. Being a beta tester for some of these, I just cant see it happening at all. MS would have to give the metro SDK so many desktop features that they would find themselves porting over the desktop into metro. It makes no sense trying to reinvent the wheel. Though metro could probably support "some" menu driven types of programs with Paul's menu bar suggestions, unfortunately there are many other programs that are just too complex under the hood for the metro environment. MS has a lot of work in front of them that makes me pretty skeptical with their direction.

What I love about metro is that we also have the desktop. We can run feature rich desktop programs on powerful Tablets and touch screen laptops. This is something MS needs to use to their advantage.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More